Obama
With the U.S. presidential elections finally here, I thought I might as well throw my opinion into the mix. After all, there's a microscopic chance that some Americans out there want me to tell them who to vote for. And for the rest of you...well, maybe you can leave me a comment or something.
I've been in favour of Barack Obama for a while now, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. People who talk about current events with me already know that I'm a kind of a socialist at heart. And while Obama is a far cry from a true social democrat, he's still the closest thing to it that the Americans have.
Which isn't really saying much, given that they only have two choices.
My support for Obama was lukewarm at first. It was mostly tactical--kind of a default position, based mostly on the fact that he was a democrat who seemed like he'd have broad appeal. At the time I was more interested in other candidates with a much lower chance of making it past the primaries, although I did say from the start that Obama was the best realistic choice.
Over the last twelve months, however, I've become increasingly impressed with the man. His public charisma is astounding, for one thing. It's led his political opponents to make fun of him for being a "rock star" or a "celebrity"...as though his popularity was a bad thing.
Actually, I think the most striking thing about Obama's public presence has more to do with his sincerity than his rock-star appeal. He never acts cynical or petty, and he always seems genuinely optimistic about the future. Those are fine qualities in a politician--although I can't deny that he's a very good public speaker, too:
The other appealing thing about Obama is his level-headedness. You can see it in the modest way that he's handled himself throughout the election campaign, and you can see it in his reactions to the global economic crisis that's unfolded over the last few months. He's managed to come across as thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable--and his polling numbers have reacted accordingly, soaring much, much higher than they've ever been.
When their financial system began to melt down, I think perhaps American voters finally realized just how much their nation has deteriorated in recent years. And suddenly, they don't want a president who's just a "war hero", or someone that "you'd want to go have a beer with". Suddenly, the idea of a "hockey mom" sitting in the White House doesn't seem kinda cool--it just seems scary.
The simple truth is that America is in a lot of trouble right now. And when things are bad, people stop looking for a president who's "just like them" (i.e. completely unqualified.) When things are bad, people look for a president who will actually be able to fix things.
Remember this silly beer ad from a few (eight) years ago?
It's been redone as campaign ad for Obama--one of the best I've ever seen:
It kinda reminds you of better days, doesn't it?
Which brings me to the best thing about Barack Obama.
Hope.
Americans rally behind this man because he gives them hope. And after eight straight years of non-stop disaster, you can't blame them for wanting a little of that.
Global Markets
I haven't had much time for blog postings lately, hopefully that'll change soon.
Given the current economic crisis, I find this movie very interesting. And timely. And a bit of a downer, actually, since it seems to offer a brutally honest explanation for why the global economy is currently self-destructing.
Funny thing is, it was written and filmed long before any of this credit and equity market meltdown stuff started.
The Pitbull
Well, since political season is in full swing these days, I thought I'd share a particularly insightful article by Matt Taibi (from The Rolling Stone).
It's about Sarah Palin, who'll become America's first female vice president in January, assuming John McCain wins the upcoming election. And if that happens, she might end up becoming America's first female president, too.
John McCain is, after all, in his seventies, and he's had cancer. At his age, the actuarial data suggests that he'll probably become severely incapacitated (or die of old age) sometime in the next four to eight years. If that happens, the presidency would automatically pass on to Palin.
This would be a disaster, because Sarah Palin is so unfit to govern that she actually makes the current president look competent. The fact that she might one day have his job is terrifying--it really might be the most tragic example of mass lunacy that has occurred in my lifetime. Just ask Matt Damon.
This all begs the question, why? Why would people willingly elect George Bush (twice), and then go straight from him to someone like Sarah Palin?
From the article:
The great insight of the Palin VP choice is that huge chunks of American voters no longer even demand that their candidates actually have policy positions; they simply consume them as media entertainment, rooting for or against them according to the reflexive prejudices of their demographic, as they would for reality-show contestants or sitcom characters. Hicks root for hicks, moms for moms, born-agains for born-agains.
If you want, you can read the rest of Taibi's article here. I should warn you that Matt Taibi is not known for being a politically correct (or family friendly) writer, so skip it if you are easily offended.
He’s Still Right, Though
Check out this video.
Bill Maher (my favourite political commentator and comedian) once again cuts through the political rhetoric and explains how things really are:
He also unintentionally demonstrates why "They think they're better than you!" is such an effective slogan when it comes to convincing people to vote against the "liberal elites."
He's still right, though.
The Path to Insanity
I recently stumbled upon a video that I found interesting (in a depressing way.) It's a snippet of a speech by Scott Ritter. Ritter is a well-known critic of the US war in Iraq, as well as the former Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq. In this video, he describes what he thinks will happen if the US goes ahead with an invasion of Iran:
If you're not into middle eastern politics or military jargon, here are a few explanations that make the video a little clearer:
1. The US government does indeed seem to be looking for a reason to invade Iran. They've been talking about it and making veiled threats for over a year.
2. There are a significant number of people in America who believe (very wrongly, I think) that Iran is a threat to the US, and that invading Iran would be a good idea. It would not.
3. In this video, Ritter talks about the joint chiefs of staff "eliminating nuclear weapons in the first phase of an operation." What he means is that he believes the American military won't be using nukes at the beginning of an invasion of Iran.
4. Ritter also mentions "usable nukes", which are a new kind of small, low-yield nuclear weapon that was recently developed by the US military. Usable nukes are meant to be deployed against troops in the field or against fortified military installations (they are sometimes called "bunker busters.") This is different than normal nuclear weapons, which are mostly supposed to be used on cities.
5. Some people (myself and Ritter included) think that any use of these smaller nukes will just cause other countries to make their own "usable nukes", which will then lead to everyone having and using bigger and bigger nukes. This is one part of the "nuclear genie" that Ritter mentions.
6. When Ritter refers to "boots on the ground", he's describing a true military invasion, i.e. a strategy that involves land-based troops. The typical US strategy when attacking another country is to just bomb the hell out of it from the air, because there are way fewer American casualties that way. But when that doesn't work, sometimes they have to send in the ground troops.
7. Ritter believes that if you have a lot of US soldiers invading Iran with their "boots on the ground", you'll end up with all those troops surrounded and in a lot of danger. (As Ritter puts it, they'll be "in harm's way", which is just a technical military term that means, "about to be killed by the enemy.") And if the troops end up in harm's way, then that will be sufficient justification for the Americans to start using their new "usable nukes".
